World news
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Trump’s tariffs have become his Vietnam – and the right is breaking ranks | Sidney Blumenthal
Donald Trump’s trade war has become his quagmire: legal, economic and political. On 28 May, the court of international trade ruled his tariffs exceeded his constitutional authority. Point by point, the decision decimated Trump’s arguments as flimsy and false, implicitly castigated the Republican Congress for abdicating its constitutional responsibility, and reminded other courts, not least the supreme court, of the judicial branch’s obligation to exercise its authority regardless of the blustering of the executive and the fecklessness of the legislative branches.Trump’s tariffs, along with his withdrawal of active support for Ukraine and passivity toward his strongman father figure Vladimir Putin, have broken the western alliance, forcing the west to make its own arrangements with China, and cementing the idea for a generation to come that the United States is an untrustworthy and unstable partner.On the economic front, Trump’s tariffs have already begun to increase inflation, shutter trade, devalue the dollar, and undermine manufacturing. They will soon create shortages of all sorts of goods, ruin small business, and force layoffs that bring about stagflation that has not been seen since the 1970s, which was then the result of an external oil shock, not self-harm. On 3 June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that as a result, principally, of Trump’s tariffs, the US will suffer a decline in the rate of growth from what had been forecast this year. “Lower growth and less trade will hit incomes and slow job growth,” the OECD stated.As a political matter, besides being unpopular, Trump’s tariffs, in combination with his assaults on the institutions of civil and legal society, have drawn out the most intelligent and skillful members of the conservative legal establishment, who themselves have been some of the most crucial players in the rise of the right wing, to man the ramparts against him. These are not the familiar Never Trumpers, but newly engaged and potentially more dangerous foes.While corporate leaders uniformly abhor Trump’s tariffs, they have stifled themselves into a complicit silence on the road to serfdom. But Trump’s new enemies coming from the conservative citadel of the Federalist Society are filing brief after brief in the courts, upholding the law to halt his dictatorial march.Trump naturally cannot help but turn everything he touches into sordid scandal. After announcing his “Liberation Day” tariffs, which tanked the stock market, Trump declared a pause during which he promised he would sign, seal and deliver 90 deals in 90 days. But he has announced only a deal with Britain. Most of the deals Trump has seen have been with the Trump Organization. Under the shadow of a threatened 46% tariff, Vietnam, after a visit from Eric Trump, granted a $1bn Trump Tower in Ho Chi Minh City and a $1.5bn golf club and resort near Hanoi with “two championship golf courses”, relative crumbs alongside the billions the Trump family has accrued from across the Middle East, not to mention the $400m jet that his team solicited from Qatar to serve as his palatial Air Force One.Standing before the white marble plinth of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington national cemetery on Memorial Day, 26 May, after reading prepared remarks about “our honored dead” to a gathering of Gold Star families, Donald Trump fell into a reverie about his divine destiny. “I have everything,” he said. He spoke about the parade of troops and tanks he has ordered for 14 June, his 79th birthday, which happens to coincide with the date that George Washington created the Continental army. “Amazing the way things work out. God did that, I believe that too. God did it.”Two days after Trump had mused about his election by heaven to possess “everything”, the court of international trade issued what the Wall Street Journal called the “ruling heard ‘round the world … proving again that America doesn’t have a king who can rule by decree’”.The US court of appeals for DC then temporarily stayed the ruling while it considered the case. But the trade court’s decision to deny Trump his toys was comprehensive, blistering and devastating. Now, Trump’s trade war is his Vietnam, a quagmire of his own.Trump’s entire program dances on the head of his tariffs. By fiat, without congressional approval, he has willfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as cover for his helter-skelter gyrations to reshape the global economy according to his desire for domination of the Earth. He has further explained that his tariffs are necessary to pay for the vast tax cuts for the wealthy in his budget bill that would increase deficits. He claims that the tariffs will replace the revenue raised from income tax, fixed in the constitution by the 16th amendment, ratified in 1913. Without tariffs on the scope he projects his dream house of cards collapses. With his tariffs even as his stated minimal goal he blows up the world.The court of international trade, a court based on specialized expertise, whose judges have lifetime appointments, flatly stated that Trump’s use of the emergency law under which he claimed his authority does “not permit the president to impose tariffs in response to balance-of-payments deficits”, “exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president”, “would create an unconstitutional delegation of power”, and is “contrary to law”.Having ruled that Trump’s worldwide tariffs are illegal, the court deemed his “trafficking tariffs” imposed on Canada and Mexico also lawless. Trump has asserted them on a contrived national security rationale of preventing the importation of fentanyl. But the court stated that Trump’s “use of tariffs as leverage … is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective but because … [the federal law] does not allow it”. Thus, the court concluded in both instances, “the worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the president … to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”The trade court’s ruling suddenly exposed the extent to which Trump’s relationship with the conservative legal movement is unraveling. The fissure runs deeper and wider than name-calling. Trump’s trade war has morphed into a widespread civil war within the right with the core of the conservative legal establishment resisting him.Trump’s venomous social media posts against Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society co- chairman and rightwing powerhouse, reads like a memoir of an ingenue taken advantage of in the big city by strangers. “I was new to Washington,” Trump explained, “and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.”Slowly, Trump has come to the realization that this Leonard Leo “openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court”. Trump was revealing that Leo understood his power beyond his influence over Trump on appointments. “Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!” He is victim of a con, Donald Chump.“Talk about friendly fire,” editorialized the Wall Street Journal. But there was more to the story than Trump revealed, which the Journal’s editorial page, Leonard Leo’s friend in court as it were, happily provided. The judge on the trade court whom Trump appointed and blames on Leo, Timothy Reif, was in fact, according to the Journal, “recommended to the White House by Robert Lighthizer, who was Mr Trump’s first-term trade representative. Mr Leo had nothing to do with it.” Perhaps Trump is suffering from memory loss.Trump bellowed that the reason for the trade court’s ruling must be “purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP’? What other reason could it be?” “Well,” suggested the Journal, “how about the law and the constitution?” After Leo had been the one to give Trump the names of the three justices he appointed to the supreme court who made possible the infamous decision granting him “absolute immunity” for “official acts” that enabled his evasion of prosecution during the 2024 campaign, this was a thick and rich ragu.The Journal also rushed to Leo’s side with a podcast featuring John Yoo, who as deputy assistant attorney general under George W Bush and the author of the notorious Torture Memos. Yoo said it was “truly outrageous to accuse Leonard Leo, one of the stalwarts or the conservative movement, of being something like a traitor”. Yoo stated: “Why would President Trump turn his back on one of his greatest, if not his greatest achievements from the first term, appointing three justices?” Indeed, Yoo was right that Leo had dictated Trump’s choices, exactly as Trump confessed. What neither disclosed is that it was the price Trump paid for a political armistice with the mighty rightwing Koch political operation. Some deal, some art.And Yoo added in an admission of truth-telling about the supreme court’s invention of absolute presidential immunity for “official acts”: “If it weren’t for Federalist Society judges, he would be in jail right now because it was the Roberts court that said former presidents just can’t be prosecuted for crimes.”But to Trump, the betrayal is cutting. The trade court’s ruling against him echoed the amicus brief filed by a bipartisan group of legal eminences that included leading conservative lights. There was Steven Calabresi, professor at Northwestern Law School, the co-founder and co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and the chief theorist of the conservative doctrine of the “unitary executive”. There was Michael W McConnell, former federal judge, Stanford law professor, and a chief defender of religious right lawsuits. There was Michael Mukasey, former federal judge and George W Bush’s attorney general. There was Peter Wallison, President Reagan’s White House counsel. They all signed the brief stating: “The president’s tariff proclamations bypass the constitutional framework that lends legitimacy and predictability to American lawmaking.”The breaking of ranks on the right is not isolated. Other well-known members of the conservative legal establishment have done more than submit an amicus brief. They have become counsels to some of the most important institutions in Trump’s crosshairs – Harvard University, National Public Radio and the WilmerHale law firm.William Burck and Robert Hur are co-counsels representing Harvard in its suit against the Trump administration order denying its enrollment of international students unless the university submits to his draconian control over its academic processes.Burck, former deputy White House counsel to George W Bush and a current member of the board of directors of the Fox Corporation, is the head of “one of a few top US firms that seemed well placed not only to avoid Donald Trump’s wrath but also benefit from connections to the president’s inner circle”, according to the Financial Times. He was hired to be an ethics adviser to the Trump Organization – that is, until he chose to represent Harvard. Trump ranted against him: “Harvard is a threat to Democracy, with a lawyer, who represents me, who should therefore be forced to resign, immediately, or be fired. He’s not that good, anyway, and I hope that my very big and beautiful company, now run by my sons, gets rid of him ASAP!” Eric Trump, who had previously called Burck “one of the nation’s finest and most respected lawyers”, wielded the executioner’s axe for his father.Hur had been appointed the US attorney for Maryland by Trump and served as the special counsel investigating President Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents stored in boxes in his home’s garage. Hur filed no charges, but said of Biden that he was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.In Harvard’s suit against the Trump administration, Burck and Hur state that its actions against the university are “a blatant violation of the first amendment, the due process clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its first amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students. The government’s actions are unlawful for other equally clear and pernicious reasons.”For its representation in its suit against the Trump administration, which seeks to slash its funding, National Public Radio has hired Miguel Estrada, a star of the conservative legal firmament, whose nomination to the federal bench by George W Bush was blocked by Senate Democrats in 2002. According to the NPR complaint, Trump’s action “violates the expressed will of Congress and the first amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information”.When Trump issued executive orders against big law firms that had somehow offended him, coercing their surrender to his whim, one of those firms, WilmerHale, subject to such an order for having had as a senior partner Robert Mueller, the former FBI director who headed the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 election, did not cave. Instead, it hired Paul Clement, George W Bush’s solicitor general, who has argued on behalf of many of the most controversial conservative causes before the supreme court, including against the Defense of Marriage Act and against the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.Citing the example of John Adams, who defended British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, Clement argued against the Trump administration that “British monarchs’ practice of punishing attorneys ‘whose greatest crime was to dare to defend unpopular causes’ – which threatened to reduce lawyers to ‘parrots of the views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment’ – helped inspire the Bill of Rights”.Then, Ed Whelan, who holds the Antonin Scalia chair in constitutional studies at the rightwing Ethics and Public Policy Center, and is a close surrogate for Leonard Leo, savaged Trump’s nomination of Emil Bove, who was his personal attorney in the New York hush-money trial and whom he had appointed as deputy attorney general, to be a judge on the US court of appeals for the third circuit.Bove ordered corruption charges dropped against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams, which a federal judge said “smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions”. The US attorney for Manhattan, Danielle Sassoon, a conservative Republican, resigned in protest, stating that the deal “amounted to a quid pro quo” and that Bove had ordered her not to take notes during meetings. Seven members of the public integrity section of the justice department also resigned.Whelan, writing in the conservative magazine National Review, called Bove Trump’s “henchman”, decried his “bullying mishandling” of the Adams case, and suggested he might be put on the federal bench to “position him well for the next supreme court vacancy. A rosier possibility is that Bove is tired of being Stephen Miller’s errand boy.”Now, Trump is worried about what conservatives on the supreme court might rule when presented with the trade court’s decision. He rails in private against Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed to the supreme court, for her unexpected occasional independence. The Journal, with the inside track, writes that “the White House boasts it will win at the supreme court, but our reading of the trade court’s opinion suggests the opposite. Mr Trump’s three court appointees are likely to invoke the major-questions precedent” – which would uphold the trade court and force Trump either to bring his policy before the Congress or drop it.Trump is enraged that his betrayers from the Federalist Society have claimed roles in the resistance. He has no loyalty to anyone or thing, but demands personal fealty, certainly now above any ideological litmus tests. The only ideological tests are to be imposed on universities. Trump has learned his lesson. In his insistence on obedient judges, Trump is returning to his first principle as he was taught in the beginning by his mob attorney Roy Cohn, who said: “Don’t tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.”
Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist and co-host of The Court of History podcast More
- in US Politics
Companies that spinelessly follow Trump’s cuts to DEI will pay a heavy price | Miriam González Durántez
Organising a women’s networking event in the US has become an act of defiance. Companies with equality-driven agendas risk losing government contracts. Some are receiving McCarthy-like letters asking them to confirm that they have no diversity policies. Activities designed to support women, including healthcare research, are being threatened, and companies are backtracking on former commitments. Women’s networking events, the gathering of diversity data and targeted training are being questioned. And some companies are requesting that charities focused on women and girls consider changes to their programmes in order to navigate the current climate. The one I founded, Inspiring Girls, has already been asked to “include men as role models”.This anti-diversity wave isn’t just a social backlash to the many excesses of wokeness – it is politically orchestrated and driven. It crystallised in 2021, when the senator Josh Hawley devoted his entire keynote speech at the second National Conservatism Conference to “reclaiming masculinity”, calling for boys (not girls) to be taught competitiveness, strength, honesty and courage – as if those were only male values. Since then, the movement has reached the highest offices of power: the White House is its headquarters and its commander-in-chief is Trump’s deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, who promised last year to tackle “anti-white racism” if Trump won a second term.The anti-diversity brigade has no shortage of money or allies: several “tech bros” (whether out of conviction or FOMO) have joined in – as have tech venture capitalists and other Maga financiers. These are men who operate in fields dominated almost exclusively by other men and who wield enormous wealth and influence, yet they often cast themselves as victims. They hide their anti-diversity stance under the disguise of meritocracy.On the progressive side, there is a movement claiming that it is actually boys – particularly white working-class ones – rather than girls who are “in crisis”. It is led by the American Institute for Boys and Men, which last week received a $20m grant from Melinda French Gates. They argue that boys lag behind girls in education and employment. It is true, of course, that many of the manufacturing jobs that many young men used to rely on are vanishing due to automation and tech (ironically, for the benefit of mostly male tech moguls). Unfortunately, however, this well-meaning movement is fuelling the anti-diversity brigade’s narrative – because they can now claim that even progressives admit it is white men who are suffering.The Trump administration has not yet imposed specific obligations on businesses to withdraw diversity programmes beyond companies who have contracts with the government – including, now, some companies across the EU, but many are taking spontaneous actions. Some companies are doing so because their diversity policies were just for show, while others are simply acting out of fear. The trend is clear: many are eliminating references to diversity and equality from their websites and in their reporting; others are reneging from aspirational targets, stopping data-gathering on recruitment and promotions, and dismantling training programmes.Some of the companies that are backtracking have headquarters in the UK or Europe. And many of the US tech companies and funds that are leading the diversity backlash have subsidiaries and offices on this side of the Atlantic. Their actions are in straightforward conflict with the letter and the spirit of British and EU legislation on equality, such as EU corporate sustainability reporting rules or equal opportunities and equal pay directives.And yet the equality ministries in the British and other European governments – and in the European Commission – have remained largely silent. Most equality ministries and agencies are led by herbivorous politicians and officials who favour performative programmes over meaningful action. Confronting Trump is far too scary for them, which is why they have not set the limits of what companies can and cannot do, whether specifically or in general guidelines.Over time, it is possible the anti-diversity movement will yield some positives, as it could drive companies who continue to believe in diversity towards more meaningful, effective and data-based policies. Besides, in a litigation-led country such as the US, it is only a matter of time before the courts impose some limits on government-led anti-diversity intimidation. When they do, the backlash against companies that have acted spinelessly will have its own consequences.But the UK and the rest of Europe cannot be passive spectators waiting for the pendulum to swing again. Our equality authorities should counteract Trump’s raid on diversity by providing clear official guidance to companies on what they can and cannot do – it is their legal and moral duty to do so. America First should not mean America Everywhere when it comes to the fundamental principles of diversity, equality and inclusion.
Miriam González Durántez is an international trade lawyer and the founder and chair of Inspiring Girls
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More
- in US Politics
Jewish Americans of all stripes reconsider safety protocols – but disagree on roots of recent violence
On the first night of Passover, it seemed like a one-off – an arson attack on the mansion of the Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro. The arsonist, per police, took issue with Shapiro’s stance on Israel and Palestine.Then, in late May, outside an American Jewish Committee young professionals’ event for young Jews in the DC area to meet young diplomats, two Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed; the shooter yelled, “Free Palestine.” Roughly a week and a half later, in Boulder, Colorado, a rally in solidarity with hostages held in Gaza was firebombed; the attacker also reportedly yelled, “Free Palestine.”The string of events have deeply unnerved Jewish Americans of all stripes. Despite a wide range of political views, there exists a measure of consensus among Jewish institutions that they need to reconsider their safety protocols. There is less unity on the root causes of the violence, and what policy solutions should address it.“I don’t know anyone who isn’t rethinking their security and the security of the Jewish institutions that they visit,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America.Many synagogues have recently heightened security, whether in the form of armed guards, metal detectors, surveillance systems or some combination.Rabbi Joe Black is a senior rabbi of Temple Emanuel, a Reform congregation in Denver, Colorado, a Jewish community he described as “closely linked” to Boulder’s. He said that his synagogue has in recent years upped its spending on security in response to rising antisemitism, putting in place guards, cameras and security systems.View image in fullscreenThe last several weeks have also seen a change of protocols. “I never liked the thought of having armed guards in the synagogue. I do now. And I hate that,” Black said. Meanwhile, Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, recently called for Congress to increase funding for security at Jewish institutions.The American Jewish community is deeply divided over thorny questions around when calls for Palestinian rights cross over into antisemitism. Many view the string of attacks as part of a rising wave of antisemitism fueled by the pro-Palestinian movement. Some on the left, on the other hand, object to conflations of anti-Zionism with antisemitism that are used to suppress protest against Israel’s US-backed war in Gaza. The recent acts of violence all involved targets associated to varying degrees with Jewish life but also with Israel – though it is not entirely clear what the perpetrators knew about them or, in the case of the latter two, precisely how they selected their targets.For some, particularly more conservative voices, the issue is one of speech that has gotten out of hand. Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, has singled out the Twitch streamer Hasan Piker and university graduation speakers who have spoken out in support of Palestinian rights, whom he accused of spreading “blood libel” against Jews. “We’ve got to stop it once and for all,” he said on Fox News.“We were told over and over again that this was just freedom of speech being exercised. It should not be misunderstood at this point: when someone says ‘Free Palestine,’ what they mean is ‘kill Jews,’” Dr Nolan Lebovitz, senior rabbi at California’s Valley Beth Shalom, one of the largest conservative synagogues in the country, told the Guardian. He pointed as an example to a protest on 8 October 2023 that included some voices that appeared to celebrate the Hamas attacks from the day before, referring to it as a “terror parade”.Others see a different kind of predictability, arguing that if Jewish institutions themselves blur the lines between Judaism and support for Israel – particularly as Israel wages a war in Gaza that has killed by a conservative estimate of more than 50,000 Palestinians since the 7 October attacks – it is inevitable that others will, too.“When you have the main [Jewish] institutions … consistently hammering home that Zionism and Judaism are entirely equivalent, that you can’t have Judaism without Zionism, and that 90% of American Jews are Zionist – how do you expect people outside of the community to not just take that for granted?” asked Rabbi Andrue Kahn, the executive director of the American Council for Judaism, which is devoted to promoting Jewish life “free from Zionist and other nationalist ideologies”.The backdrop to all of this is the Trump administration, which has spent the last several months cracking down on universities and detaining and trying to deport students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, all in the name of fighting antisemitism. In the wake of the attack in Washington DC, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, denounced the term “free Palestine” and vowed to continue a crackdown on foreign nationals. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, in a social media statement following the Boulder firebombing, did not explicitly mention Jews, but did blame his predecessor Joe Biden’s border policies for the attack, suggesting he would use the attack as further justification for his anti-immigrant crackdown.View image in fullscreen“I think one of the things that we’ve been seeing over the past several months is a weaponization of antisemitism by the current administration in order to promote policies that are contrary to my values, contrary to Jewish values,” said Black, the Reform rabbi from Denver. “That doesn’t mean antisemitism is not real. It needs to be addressed in a sane, clear, logical way.”Black believes that the attacks were a consequence of the term “Zionism” being warped in public discourse to become synonymous with oppression. (He calls himself a “proud Zionist” who supports Israel’s right to defend itself but questions the motives of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in prosecuting the war.) Asked what steps he wanted to see taken, he, too, said he wanted more funding for non-profit security – and also for politicians to avoid using the attacks to justify their own political ends.“There’s disagreement about what it will take for the current administration to really take on antisemitism,” said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. Law enforcement needed to work with and be responsive to Jewish communities, he said, and there needed to be a national conversation about distinguishing between free speech and incitement to violence. “But at the same time, we don’t want to dismantle our democracy and the rule of law and constitutional rights. It’s a delicate balance,” he continued.“We have a wider Jewish community that’s fearful,” he said. “No one is surprised when they get the news flash that there’s been yet another attack on the Jewish community.”There is one point of agreement: the answer is not for Jews to drop out of engaging civically and as Jews. Jacobs insisted: “We will not accept a reality where people are just too afraid to participate in Jewish life.” More
- in US Politics
What is Trump’s new travel ban, and which countries are affected?
Nearly five months into his second term, Donald Trump has announced a new sweeping travel ban that could reshape the US’s borders more dramatically than any policy in modern memory. The restrictions, revealed through a presidential proclamation on Wednesday, would target citizens from more than a dozen countries – creating a three-tiered system of escalating barriers to entry.The proclamation represents one of the most ambitious attempts to reshape the US’s approach to global mobility in modern history and potentially affects millions of people coming to the United States for relocation, travel, work or school.What is a travel ban?A travel ban restricts or prohibits citizens of specific countries from entering the United States. These restrictions can range from complete visa suspensions to specific limitations on certain visa categories.Trump’s day one executive order required the state department to identify countries “for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension on the admission of nationals from those countries”.His travel ban proclamation referenced the previous executive order, as well as the recent attack by an Egyptian national in Boulder, Colorado, upon a group of people demonstrating for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza.What is a presidential proclamation?A presidential proclamation is a decree that is often ceremonial or can have legal implications when it comes to national emergencies.Unlike an executive order, which is a directive to heads of agencies in the administration, the proclamation primarily signals a broad change in policy.Which countries are listed in the travel ban?The following countries were identified for total bans of any nationals seeking to travel to the US for immigrant or non-immigrant reasons:
Afghanistan
Myanmar
Chad
Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Haiti
Iran
Libya
Somalia
Sudan
Yemen
He’s also partially restricting the travel of people from:Burundi
Cuba
Laos
Sierra Leone
Togo
Turkmenistan
Venezuela
Why were these countries chosen?The proclamation broadly cites national security issues for including the countries, but specifies a few different issues that reach the level of concern for the travel ban.For some countries, such as Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Venezuela, the proclamation claims that there is no reliable central authority for issuing passports or screening and vetting nationals traveling out of the country.For other countries, such as Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Burundi, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo and Turkmenistan, the proclamation cites a high rate of immigrants overstaying their visas in the US.Finally, there are several countries that are included because of terrorist activity or state- sponsored terrorism, including Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and Cuba.How does this travel ban differ from the one in 2017?The 2017 ban initially targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries before expanding to include North Korea and Venezuela. This new proclamation is broader and also makes the notable addition of Haiti.During his 2024 campaign for the presidency, Trump amplified false claims made by his running mate, JD Vance, that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were “eating the pets of the people that live there”. The proclamation falsely claims that “hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens flooded into the United States during the Biden administration” and this “influx harms American communities”. In fact, about 200,000 Haitians were granted temporary protected status, which gives legal residency permits to foreign nationals who are unable to return home safely due to conditions in their home countries.Also notable are the restrictions on Afghans, given that many of the Afghans approved to live in the US as refugees were forced to flee their home country as a result of working to support US troops there, before the full withdrawal of US forces in 2021. The agreement with the Taliban to withdraw US troops was negotiated by Trump during his first term.Last month, homeland security secretary Kristi Noem announced “the termination of temporary protected status for Afghanistan”, effective 20 May. More - in US Politics
Trump signs order banning citizens of 12 countries from entering the US
Donald Trump has signed a sweeping order banning travel from 12 countries and restricting travel from seven others, reviving and expanding the travel bans from his first term.The nationals of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be “fully” restricted from entering the US, according to the proclamation. Meanwhile, the entry of nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela will be partially restricted.The US president said that he “considered foreign policy, national security, and counterterrorism goals” in deciding the scope of the ban. Trump had cued up the ban in an executive order signed on 20 January, his first day back in the White House, instructing his administration to submit a list of candidates for a ban by 21 March.Trump has cited a range of justifications for the bans, including national security and concerns that visitors from those countries are overstaying their visas.But advocates and experts have said that blanket travel bans discriminate against groups of people based on ethnicity alone. They will likely result – as the travels bans did during Trump’s first term – in the separation of families. The bans on travel from Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela could be especially impactful in US communities with huge immigrant populations from those countries.“This discriminatory policy, which limits legal immigration, not only flies in the face of what our country is supposed to stand for, it will be harmful to our economy and communities that rely on the contributions of people who come to America from this wide range of countries,” said Pramila Jayapal, a Democratic representative of Washington.The decision to ban travel from these countries comes amid a wave of hardline immigration policies that Trump has issued, including the blocking of asylum claims at the southern border and cancelling temporary protected status for immigrants from a number of countries facing deep humanitarian crises. Trump has also signed a proclamation to restrict foreign student visas at Harvard University and ordered US consulates to conduct social media screening of every visa applicant seeking to travel to the university.In a video message released on social media, Trump said he was making good on a promise to act following the recent attack at a Boulder, Colorado, event showing support for Israeli hostages. The attack by an Egyptian national “underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted, as well as those who come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas. We don’t want them,” he said.Trump added that the list was “subject to revisions based on whether material improvements are made” and that “likewise, new countries could be added as threats emerge around the world”.Having instituted a travel ban on Muslim countries early in his first term, Trump trailed his plans for a new ban during his election campaign against Kamala Harris last year.“I will ban refugee resettlement from terror-infested areas like the Gaza Strip, and we will seal our border and bring back the travel ban,” Trump said in September. “Remember the famous travel ban? We didn’t take people from certain areas of the world. We’re not taking them from infested countries.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionView image in fullscreenHe was referring to the ban he imposed after taking office in January 2017, leading to chaos at airports as protesters and civil rights attorneys rushed to help affected travelers.Trump said the ban was needed to combat terrorist threats. It was blocked by federal courts on civil liberties grounds but the US supreme court, to which Trump would eventually appoint three hardline rightwing justices, allowed the ban to stand.The supreme court said Trump’s ban did not target Muslims – despite the fact it originally targeted travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, Muslim-majority countries. According to the court, the ban fell within the remit of a president’s national security powers. North Korea and Venezuela were also included.The Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) said then: “The Muslim ban’s bigotry should have been as clear to the supreme court as it is to the Muslims demonized by it. Apparently, everyone but the supreme court can see the decision for what it is: an expression of animosity.”In 2020, shortly before the Covid pandemic drastically reduced world travel, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Tanzania and Sudan were added to the ban.In 2021, that travel ban was among measures Joe Biden ended within hours of being sworn in as Trump’s White House successor. More
- in US Politics
Trump officials intensify Columbia dispute with accreditation threat
The Department of Education announced on Wednesday afternoon that it has notified Columbia University’s accreditor of an alleged violation of federal anti-discrimination laws by the elite private university in New York that is part of the Ivy League.The alleged violation means that Columbia, in the Trump administration’s assessment, has “failed to meet the standards” set by the relevant regional, government-recognized but independent body responsible for the accreditation of degree-granting institutions, as a kind of educational quality controller.In this case the accreditor is the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Accreditors determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and various federal grants.The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment.“Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell grants,” the secretary of education, Linda McMahon, said in a statement. Pell grants are awarded as federal financial aid to students with exceptional financial need.A spokesperson for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education declined to provide comment but confirmed that the organization had received a letter from the Department of Education about the matter on Wednesday.While the federal government does not directly accredit US universities, it has a role in overseeing the mostly private organizations that do. Trump has often complained that accreditors approve institutions that fail to provide, in his view, quality education.The notice marks the latest escalation in the Trump administration’s bid to dictate to Columbia after accusing the college of failing to protect students from antisemitic harassment.It follows the cancellation of $400m in federal grants and contracts, after which the university yielded to a series of changes demanded by the administration, including setting up a new disciplinary committee, initiating investigations into students critical of Israel’s war in Gaza, and ceding control of its Middle East studies department.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionColumbia was at the forefront of student encampment protests last spring, with more direct action protests erupting in recent weeks and jeers at leadership at commencement ceremonies last month, and has cycled through a series of university presidents in the past 18 months.The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services said last month that an investigation found that the university had acted with “deliberate indifference” toward the harassment of Jewish students during campus protests, while Columbia has previously said it would work with the government to address antisemitism, harassment and discrimination.Reuters contributed reporting More
